Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/63/2016

Sachin Banga - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Savinder Singh Gill, Adv.

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	165  of  2016
Date of Institution	:	27.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	22.08.2016

 

1. Lavinder Mann wife of Hardeep Singh Mann.
2. Hardeep Singh Mann son of Paratama Singh.

Both residents of House No.3, Rajbaha Road, Patiala.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s Golden Peak Township Private Limited), S.C.O. 139-140, 1^st Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/s Golden Peak Township Private Limited), 10 LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi, through its Authorized Representative.

             .... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Mukund Gupta, Advocate for the   complainants.

       Sh.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties.

======================================================

Complaint case No.	:	63 of  2016
Date of Institution	:	15.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	22.08.2016

 

Sachin Banga son of Sh.Ashok Kumar Banga resident of #551, Sector 7, UE, Kurukshetra, Haryana, currently residing in 714A Country Club Parkway Mount Laurel, New Jersey-08054, United States of America.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. 143-144, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

                   .... Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the      complainant.

       Sh.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.

======================================================

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:           JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                   By this order, we propose to dispose of, the following two cases:-

1	CC/165 of 2016	Lavinder Mann and anr.	Vs.	M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
2	CC/63 of 2016	Sachin Banga	Vs.	M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd.

 

2.           Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. Complainants in the above cases have sought possession of the unit, purchased by them, respectively, alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
3.           At the time of arguments, on 12.08.2016, it was agreed between Counsel for the parties, that facts involved in the above complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, the complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
4.           Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No. 165 of 2016, titled as Lavinder Mann and anr. Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and anr. The opposite parties launched a housing project under the name and style of ‘Omaxe Chandigarh Extension’ at Mullanpur, Punjab. Allured by rosy pictures shown, the complainants decided to purchase of plot in the said project, for their residential purpose. Vide provisional allotment letter dated 20.02.2010, plot no.644, measuring 297.04 square yards, was allotted in favour of the complainants, in the said project. Allotment Letter/Agreement was executed between the parties on 20.04.2010. As per Clause 29 (a) of the Allotment Letter/Agreement, possession of the plot was to be delivered within 18 months, from the date of issuance of Allotment Letter/Agreement, with extended period of six months, subject to force majeure circumstances i.e. on or before 19.04.2012. For delay in handing over possession of the plot, no compensation was provided to be paid to the complainants. Total price of the said plot was fixed at Rs.48,51,947.60Ps., which included basic sale price; preferential location charges, maintenance security etc. The complainants opted to make payment as per plan Annexure-A, annexed with the Allotment Letter/Agreement.
5.           It is case of the complainants that by 25.06.2011, they had already paid an amount of Rs.46,24,712/-, which comes to about 95% of the total sale consideration. Balance amount was to be paid at the time of handing over possession of the developed plot. However, possession was not offered by the stipulated date. On 16.12.2015, the complainants received a letter Annexure C-7, offering them alternative plot bearing No.OCE/562-P3. Even the area of the plot was unilaterally decreased to 282.45 square yards from 297.04 square yards. The said offer was never accepted by the complainants. It is on record that for making timely payments, credit of an amount of Rs.89,100/- was given to the complainants by the opposite parties.  Many oral as well as written requests were made for delivery of possession of the plot, however, no positive response was received by the complainants.
6.           It is further case of the complainants that wrongly, excess amount was charged towards club membership and maintenance security. In the month of April 2014, a commitment was made to deliver possession of the plot, within 60 days, however, it was not honoured. It was further stated that when the plot was sold, qua the area in which it is situated, requisite Change of Land Use Certificate (CLU) was not available with the opposite parties. Lay out plans were approved much later. Other permissions like environment clearance etc. were also not available with the opposite parties, when plot was sold to the complainants. Under above circumstances, the complainants filed this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to handover actual physical possession of the plot no.644. originally allotted to them after making necessary development; to pay interest @18% p.a. on the amount deposited, for the period of delay till realization; compensation to the tune of Rs.7 lacs, for mental agony, physical harassment; escalation cost etc; and litigation expenses.
7.           Upon notice, joint reply was filed by the opposite parties. In the said reply, attempt has been made to defeat prayer made by the complainants, on frivolous grounds, like this Commission has got no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction;  the complaint is beyond limitation; complainants being investors would not fall within the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, as they had purchased the plot, in question, for commercial purpose i.e. for selling the same, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, to gain huge profits.
8.           Factual matrix of the case was not controverted. Purchase of plot by the complainants and payments made were not denied. However, it was stated that the amount so mentioned by the complainants also includes the benefit, which was given to them, as discount. It was further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the said Allotment Letter/Agreement, when computing the above said period for delivery of possession of the plot, Sundays, Saturdays, Bank Holidays, etc. are to be ignored. It was averred that the complainants opted for time linked payment plan and not construction linked as alleged. It was stated that the complainants were relocated to expedite the handing over the possession. It has been frankly admitted that delay in delivery of possession of the plot occurred, as the project is being developed on a large scale.  Prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.
9.           The parties led evidence in support of their cases.
10.           We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the cases, very carefully.
11.           The first question, that falls for consideration, is whether, the complainants fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on the record, that the complainants are the property dealers, and deal in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by them, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by  the  opposite parties, mere bald assertion i.e. simply saying that the  complainants being investors, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The  complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by  the opposite parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  
12.           The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint or not.

                   According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, it is evident from the record, that except few, almost all the receipts were issued by Chandigarh Office of the Company, as the same bore the address as “SCO 143-144, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Not only this, even email dated 17.04.2014 at page 85 of the file, was also issued/replied by Mr.Aalok Kapoor, AGM-Commercial of the Company at Chandigarh, as the same bore the address “SCO 139-140, Sector 8C, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh”. As per the documents, referred to above, part of cause of action arose to the complainants, at Chandigarh, as such, this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  The objection taken by the opposite parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

13.           Another objection taken by the opposite parties, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission, also deserves rejection. It may be stated here, that the complainant has sought possession of the plot, in question, price whereof is Rs.48,51,947.60Ps. (as is evident from the document at page 59 of the file, forming part of Allotment Letter/Agreement); interest @18% on the deposited amount for the period of delay in delivery of possession; compensation to the tune of Rs.7 lacs, for financial loss, escalation cost; mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.80,000/-, aggregate value whereof [excluding the interest claimed] fell above Rs.20 lacs and below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint.

                   As far as the interest claimed by the complainants, on the deposited amount is concerned, it is not required to be added, at this stage, to the value of the reliefs claimed, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction of this Commission, in view of law laid down by three Member Bench of the National Commission, in a case titled as Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (2003) CPJ 81 (NC), wherein it was clearly held that since rate and the period for which interest has to be allowed, is within the discretion of Consumer Foras, and that too at the stage, when the complaint is finally disposed of, as such, the same being imaginary would not be taken into consideration, at the time of filing of the same (complaint), for the purpose of determination of pecuniary jurisdiction. Not only as above, in the case of Denis Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Consumer Case No. 196 of 2016, decided on 08 March 2016, it was clearly held by the National Commission that interest component being imaginary, will not be added in the reliefs sought by the consumers, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras. The principles of law, laid down, in the cases referred to above, are fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. In view of the above, the objection taken by the opposite parties, that this Commission lacks pecuniary Jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

14.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainants, was within limitation or not.  It may be stated here that it has been frankly admitted by the opposite parties, that even as on today, possession of the plot was not offered to the complainants, as delay took place, on account of the reason that the project is being developed on a large scale. Since, even as on today, possession of the plot has not been offered and delivered to the complainants, for want of development at the site, as such, there is continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainants to file a consumer complaint, in view of principle of law laid down, in  Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal  Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint is not at all barred by time. The submission of Counsel for the opposite parties, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15.           It has vehemently been contended by Counsel for the opposite parties that from the date of allotment letter/Agreement i.e. 20.04.2010, possession could be delivered within a span of 18 months (+) 6 months (+) Sundays/Saturdays/Bank Holidays etc.

                   We feel that the contention raised is liable to be rejected. In Clause 29 (a) of the Allotment Letter/Agreement, it is stated that possession will be delivered within 18 months, from the date of allotment letter, with six months extension. It is further stated that when computing the said period all Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays will be excluded. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Commission qua another project of the opposite parties, in the case of Dr.Divya Dahiya Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited and another, Consumer Complaint No.57 of 2016, decided on 15.07.2016, wherein, it was observed as under:-

“The first question, which falls for consideration, is, as to whether there was delay in offering possession of the plot, in question, and if so, to what extent. The allotment letter for independent floor in Row-Housing Project “Silver Birch” in the project of the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-4) was issued to the complainant on 30.08.2011. As per Clause 31(a) of the allotment letter, the Opposite Parties were to complete the development of the unit within 24 months or within an extended period of six months from the date of start of construction, subject to force majeure conditions. Since allotment letter is dated 30.08.2011, by computing 24 months plus 6 months period, the Opposite Parties were bound to deliver possession of the plot, in question, by 01.03.2014. The Opposite Parties have stated that period was to be computed by excluding Sundays, Bank Holidays, enforced Govt. holidays and the days of cessation of work at site in compliance of order of any Judicial/concerned State Legislative Body. Apparently, for seeking six months extension beyond 24 months or beyond six months extended period, the Opposite Parties owe an explanation, if the delay was on account of force majure conditions but nothing by way of cogent evidence to this effect has been placed on record. Thus, when no explanation for extension of six months period has been furnished, the Opposite Parties at the most could be allowed one out of the two benefits i.e. either six months extension beyond 24 months or period on account of Sundays/Holidays etc. This Commission in Consumer Complaint No.153 of 2015 titled ‘Mr. Madan Lal Taneja and another Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers P. Ltd.’ decided on 03.11.2015, facts of which were almost identical, held that Opposite Parties were to hand over possession within 30 months from the date of start of construction. Thus, the possession of the unit, in question, was to be delivered by 01.03.2014.”

          It was specifically held that when there is no explanation of getting extension of 6 months period to deliver possession beyond the stipulated date, the benefit of exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays etc. cannot be given. Out of the two benefits, only one can be made available to the opposite parties. Similar view was reiterated by this Commission, in a case titled as Sudesh Rani Vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., and another, Complaint case No.178 of  2016, decided on 16.08.2016. In the present case, Allotment Letter/Agreement was issued on 20.04.2010. As per admitted terms and conditions, possession of the plot was to be delivered by 19.04.2012. However, it has not been so done. There is no commitment on record that possession is ready even as on today. Even future date to deliver possession has not been committed. In a very draconian manner, in the Allotment Letter/Agreement, in Clause 29(a), it has been stated that in case of delay, no claim by way of damages/ compensation will be provided to the purchaser of plot. It would mean that the opposite parties can delay and hand over possession after unlimited period. Such a situation cannot be appreciated and this would again mean to indulging into unfair trade practice.

16.           The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to delivery of possession of plot no.644, allotted to them vide Allotment Letter/Agreement dated 20.04.2010. It is an admitted fact that possession of the plot, in question, has not been offered and delivered, even by the date of filing the instant complaint, or even till date, despite the fact that more than 95% of the sale consideration has been paid by the complainants, for want of development and basic amenities at the site. No doubt, vide letter dated 16.12.2015, i.e. after a delay of about more than three years, the opposite parties informed the complainants that they have been re-allotted plot no.OCE/562P3 measuring 282.45 square yards in place of originally allotted plot no.644. No reason of this relocation was assigned by the opposite parties. It is also not case of the opposite parties that the complainants have showed their interest for relocation. On the other hand, the complainants in this complaint, have shown their disagreement for forcible relocation, by the opposite parties. The only reason given by the opposite parties and that too in their written version, for unilateral relocation of the plot, aforesaid, is to expedite the possession process. In M/S. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar & Anr , First Appeal No. 509 of 2016, decided on 03rd Jun 2016, the National Commission held that an allottee cannot be forced to accept the alternative plot,  as per the desire of the builder. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the plot, allotted in favour of the complainants, will be delivered within the maximum period of 24 months from the date of Allotment Letter/Agreement i.e. latest by 19.04.2012, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the opposite parties, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. Had the opposite parties taken a stand that plot no.644, is now not available at the site, on account of amended layout plans of the project or that the same has been sold to somebody else, then keeping in mind the same, necessary orders in that regard, would have been passed by this Commission. However, since, in the present case, no such, stand has been taken by the opposite parties, as such, we are of the considered view, that the complainants are certainly entitled to physical possession of the plot no.644, allotted to them vide Allotment Letter/Agreement dated 20.04.2010.

                   The opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation to the complainants, for causing mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in providing service.

17.           What relief can be granted to a consumer, in case of delay, in offering possession of the unit(s), came up for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as Parsvnath Exotica Ghaziabad Resident's Association Vs. Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., consumer complaint no.45/2015, decided on 06.05.2016, wherein it was argued by the project proponent that at the maximum, as provided in the Agreement, the consumer will be entitled to claim penalty for delayed compensation @Rs.5/- per square feet, per month. (However, in the present case, even no such, penalty Clause is available). Noting that in case of delay in making payment, the project proponent was charging heavy penal interest, instead of penal amount, the interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay was granted, by holding as under:-

“Though, the Agreement between the developer and the flat buyers provides for payment of compensation in case of delay @ Rs.5/- per square feet of the super area per month, such clauses have been found to be unfair trade practice and have been consistently rejected by this Commission in several decision, including  Consumer Complaint No. 427 of 2014 Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 08.6.2015.  Therefore, the aforesaid clauses cannot be taken into consideration, while determining the compensation payable to the members of the complainant association for the aforesaid delay in completion of construction.”

18.           Not only this, in another case, titled as Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon`ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest  on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order reads thus:-

 “8.   If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.

9.      xxxxxxxxxxxxx

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:

(1)     xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2)     The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.”

19.           Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon`ble National Commission, in the cases, referred to above, if interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of plot no.644, allotted to them vide Allotment Letter/Agreement dated 20.04.2010, is awarded, that would meet the ends of justice.
20.            No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties.
21.           For the reasons recorded above, both the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

In Consumer complaint bearing No.165 of 2016, titled as Lavinder Mann and anr. Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and anr., the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. To hand over physical possession of plot no.644, allotted to the complainants vide Allotment Letter/Agreement dated 20.04.2010, within a period of 03 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects,  after obtaining occupation and completion certificates, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of plot no.644, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainants, from 19.04.2012 (24 months from the promised date)  to 31.08.2016, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.09.2016, onwards (per month), till delivery of possession, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.02 lacs, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainants and deficiency in providing service, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
6. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-to the complainants, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

 

In Consumer complaint bearing No.63 of 2016, titled as Sachin Banga Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party is directed as under:-

1. To hand over physical possession of the plot, in question, allotted to the complainant vide Allotment Letter/Agreement  dated 24.02.2012, within a period of 03 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects,  after obtaining occupation and completion certificates, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant).
2. To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by him to the Registering Authorities.
3. To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, from 23.02.2014 (24 months from the promised date)  to 31.08.2016, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
4. To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.09.2016, onwards (per month), till delivery of possession, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
5. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.02 lacs, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant and deficiency in providing service, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.
6. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

22.           Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 165 of 2016, titled as Lavinder Mann and anr. Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and anr., be also placed in the file of consumer complaint bearing No.63 of 2016.
23.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

24.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

22.08.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 Rg

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	63 of  2016
Date of Institution	:	15.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	22.08.2016

 

Sachin Banga son of Sh.Ashok Kumar Banga resident of #551, Sector 7, UE, Kurukshetra, Haryana, currently residing in 714A Country Club Parkway Mount Laurel, New Jersey-08054, United States of America.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., S.C.O. 143-144, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

                   .... Opposite Party

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:           JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:        Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the         complainant.

       Sh.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT’

                   Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing No.165 of 2016, titled as Lavinder Mann and anr. Vs. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and anr, this complaint has been partly accepted with costs.

2.           Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No.165 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.           Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint bearing No.165 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

                            Sd/-                                          Sd/-

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT   Rg.

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER